GDT: HFBoards GDT | 04/05/2015

[Semantics]

Look. You are so wrong here I find it hard to believe you are being serious.

When a team can win THEIR OWN GAMES (whether it be in regulation, OT, SO, doesn't matter) the fact is if THEY win all THEIR GAMES with the Pens game being won in regulation, they will finish ahead of Pittsburgh no matter what.

That just means they don't need help from Pittsburgh's opponents. Not the same thing. When you're facing your opponent directly your success is no longer independent from your opponent's play. If Ottawa could lose vs Pit and still make the playoffs by winning their other games, *then* they would be in control of their destiny (relative to their opponent).

 

[playasRus]

That just means they don't need help from Pittsburgh's opponents. Not the same thing. When you're facing your opponent directly your success is no longer independent from your opponent's play. If Ottawa could lose vs Pit and still make the playoffs by winning their other games, *then* they would be in control of their destiny (relative to their opponent).

Both situations are Ottawa controlling their own destiny. Your situation only has them having a higher chance of success.

One is, win all games and you're in.
Yours is, win all games but one and you're in. (Your scenario indicates Ottawa has a larger margin of error).

 

[Semantics]

Win and you're in.

If that's what you mean you should just say that, instead of using terms that don't make logical sense.

But back on topic, Pittsburgh is still likely to make it because not only would Ottawa need to pass them but so would Boston and Detroit. Pit holds the tiebreaker over all three if I'm reading the standings correctly, though Detroit has a GIH.

 

[The Expert]

Neither do the Pens. But it's not logical to say that both teams are in control of a single playoff spot.

Why can't you just admit you didn't know what controlling your own fate means? It's okay, nobody is perfect man... Being wrong is one thing, we've all been there. You need to learn how to handle it better and admit your error.

The Sens certainly do control their own destiny which just means that if they do everything right they can make the playoffs. It doesn't matter how games go that they're not involved (which, if they did matter, would take control away from). That's all it means.

It's pretty simple really, or at least it should be.

 

[Hire Sather]

That just means they don't need help from Pittsburgh's opponents. Not the same thing. When you're facing your opponent directly your success is no longer independent from your opponent's play. If Ottawa could lose vs Pit and still make the playoffs by winning their other games, *then* they would be in control of their destiny (relative to their opponent).

Thats the only way I've ever used, or heard the term used.

The Sens no longer need to scoreboard watch if they win their games.

I don't know what your 2nd bolded point means. The Sens and Pens will indeed both try to win the game, yes...

 

[Semantics]

Why can't you just admit you didn't know what controlling your own fate means? It's okay, nobody is perfect man... Being wrong is one thing, we've all been there. You need to learn how to handle it better and admit your error.

The thing you're missing is, they don't control their own fate relative to the Pens, because they play them. So the Pens also have a say in their fate.

 

[Jack Straw]

If that's what you mean you should just say that, instead of using terms that don't make logical sense.

But back on topic, Pittsburgh is still likely to make it because not only would Ottawa need to pass them but so would Boston and Detroit. Pit holds the tiebreaker over all three if I'm reading the standings correctly, though Detroit has a GIH.

That's the way everyone uses the term "control your own destiny" when it comes to sports. If you don't like it, start writing letters to the editors of every newspaper in the country because that phrase has been used that way for a long time.

As for the actual playoff race, I really don't care if the Pens make it or not- I doubt they get very far if they do get in. Although as a Flyers fan I would find it highly entertaining if they didn't get in, and then Edmonton wins the lottery with the pick Pittsburgh traded to them to get Perron.

 

[BHD]

Edit: Saltiest person in this thread is right above me ^^^

Damn, there's some salt in this thread. And the usual "no fun, keep your head down" crowd. HF never disappoints.

I'm just as self-effacing when the Pens win.

 

[Hire Sather]

The thing you're missing is, they don't control their own fate relative to the Pens, because they play them. So the Pens also have a say in their fate.

I just don't understand what you are trying to say. What does it matter that they play them? It goes without saying that the Pens can win the game as well. The Sens can prevent them from winning. THey don't need anyone else to do it.

 

[The Expert]

The thing you're missing is, they don't control their own fate relative to the Pens, because they play them. So the Pens also have a say in their fate.

As does every other team the Sens play the rest of the way. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the Sens controlling their own fate.

The thing you're missing is how blatantly and embarrassingly wrong you are.

 

[HFBS]

Biggest celebration for a mediocre team ever.

I believe that would go to penguin fans when they won the Crosby lottery.

 

[Buzzo]

The thing you're missing is, they don't control their own fate relative to the Pens, because they play them. So the Pens also have a say in their fate.

Controlling your own fate = its on you to win and if you do you're in.

These two teams playing each other doesn't change that - they don't need any outside help and are solely reliant on their on success. I've never seen anyone interpret that in any other way.

 

[Jack Straw]

The thing you're missing is, they don't control their own fate relative to the Pens, because they play them. So the Pens also have a say in their fate.

Here's a scenario, using MLB. Say there's one playoff spot left, and it goes to whoever wins the NL East. Going into the last weekend of the season, everything else is decided. The Mets lead the Phillies by one game, and the Phillies are six games ahead of the Braves. Only three games left for everybody, and the Phillies and the Mets play each other in a 3 game series on the last weekend. Who controls their own destiny:

a) Phillies
b) Mets
c) both
d) neither

The correct answer is c), they both do. No other team, apart from the Phillies and the Mets, has any way to affect who gets in and who doesn't. Both teams are "in control of their own destiny". Neither needs help from anyone else, and in this situation, neither can even get help from anyone else. That's what it means.

 

[Classicnamesup]

Ironic to be arguing with someone named Semantics about this.

Anyway, Semantics you are wrong. That is all there is to it

 

[DearDiary]

The Kunitz play wasn't a penalty. If you shoot the puck after a whistle, its 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike. If you shoot the puck during a delayed call, it's not a penalty. Giroux and Voracek got the only penalties because one jumped Comeau, the other jumped Kunitz.

Reading through the thread, I see most people saying it was because the league wants the Pens into the playoffs. How does this explain the Flyers getting 2 powerplays in the last 2 minutes of the game on soft calls?

This is one of the reasons why this forum is going downhill. No one admits they're wrong, they either leave the thread or ignore what hurts their argument

 

[IvanMalison]

Wrong again. Clinching a playoff spot means you're in no matter what moves you make, i.e. you can make the worst moves possible (lose every game), and attain the winning outcome. That's *completely* different from what I described.

You might want to go back and reread some of these posts carefully, and maybe read a little game theory.

This type of game theory is not really an appropriate tool to analyze this situation, because it assumes that the parties involved can simply choose outcomes, which is not the case in the game of hockey. If you were to use game theory to look at hockey, you would have look only at outcomes, without looking at the details of what transpires in the game, and assume that the team from which you are analyzing the situation can choose the outcome of each of its remaining games.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that Ottawa can choose to win all of its remaining games, but not necessarily HOW it wins those games, and that as such they have no ability to deny the pens the loser point in their H2H matchup.

If it is reasonable to assume that Ottawa can 'choose' to win all of its remaining games, I don't see why you think it is unreasonable to assume that they win in regulation vs. pittsburgh.

In any case, suppose that the loser point issue did not exist. i.e. Whoever won the pittsburgh ottawa matchup would get in the playoffs (assuming both win out).

What would you say about that situation? It seems like you would have to claim that neither controls their destiny, because if you claim that one has control of their destiny, then you must claim that the other does as well. Since you previously stated that it is impossible for two teams to control their destiny in competing for a single spot, you are forced to deny that either controls their destiny...

Neither do the Pens. But it's not logical to say that both teams are in control of a single playoff spot.

But the Sens don't control that fact, since Pittsburgh is playing in the same game. In game theory, to "control your destiny" would mean your win conditions are independent of anything your opponent does, i.e. for every move your opponent makes you still have a winning strategy. Definitely NOT true in this case. It would be more accurate to say that neither team controls their own destiny.

 

[AtlasRust]

Flyers control both their destinies, since they play the Sens in their last game of the season. They should just throw it in regulation to eliminate Pitt.

 

[blinds]

The Kunitz play wasn't a penalty. If you shoot the puck after a whistle, its 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike. If you shoot the puck during a delayed call, it's not a penalty. Giroux and Voracek got the only penalties because one jumped Comeau, the other jumped Kunitz.

Reading through the thread, I see most people saying it was because the league wants the Pens into the playoffs. How does this explain the Flyers getting 2 powerplays in the last 2 minutes of the game on soft calls?

This is one of the reasons why this forum is going downhill. No one admits they're wrong, they either leave the thread or ignore what hurts their argument

Are you joking? How was the Bennett call soft at all? He almost ripped Mason's mask off with his stick.

The Hornqvist one was them just trying to keep control when the game was already over. Also, is it really any surprise? Pens need to learn to stop running goalies, specifically Mason.

Also, with Kunitz, there's subjectivity allowed in unsportsmanlike calls for a reason. You can't spell out every possible call.

 

[DropIt]

Biggest celebration for a mediocre team ever.

Especially for beating an equally-as mediocre team, eh?

 

[Classicnamesup]

The thing you're missing is, they don't control their own fate relative to the Pens, because they play them. So the Pens also have a say in their fate.

No, they both control their own destiny but due to them playing each other, one of them will necessarily lose.

 

[Blitzkrieg365]

The Kunitz play wasn't a penalty. If you shoot the puck after a whistle, its 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike. If you shoot the puck during a delayed call, it's not a penalty.

I disagree, shooting the puck at an empty net when you know the play is dead just to incite the other team is certainly unsportsmanlike.

 

[blinds]

I disagree, shooting the puck at an empty net when you know the play is dead just to incite the other team is certainly unsportsmanlike.

Yeah, people don't seem to understand that unsportsmanlike calls aren't written in stone, it's up to the ref's discretion. Being that it's a judgement call, neither answer is right, but I think most people would side with giving him an unsportsmanlike for the play. There was no reason to take a shot, even if he could hit the net it doesn't count for anything. It's just unsportsmanlike.

 

[Edgar Carrow]

Yeah, people don't seem to understand that unsportsmanlike calls aren't written in stone, it's up to the ref's discretion. Being that it's a judgement call, neither answer is right, but I think most people would side with giving him an unsportsmanlike for the play. There was no reason to take a shot, even if he could hit the net it doesn't count for anything. It's just unsportsmanlike.

What made it unsportsmanlike?

 

[AtlasRust]

What made it unsportsmanlike?

It's disrespectful to the other team to attempt to put the puck in the net on a whistle.

 

[PALE PWNR]

The Gary Bettman effect.